Hi! On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > I've worked on a VC system most of last year and I now go > through regular conferences... it's barely okay from a work > point of view, it takes lots of time to organize so you don't > want to do that every single day for sure.
It depends how you run it. We have teams having a video thing open during the day with there geographically-diverse other team members and it works well for them. For those teams, it also improves cohesion. Geographically-diverse teams always have to actively fight the us-vs-them vibe that seems to be fundamental human nature. Aforementioned video link is part of that. > And unlike IRC meetings, you can cannot multitask, say making > your dinner while discussing this or that feature. As others have pointed out, this is a double edged sword: Sometimes, having less distraction (or getting away with less distraction) is a Good Thing. > A VC is a full commitment, and its attractiveness is often much > higher _before_ you use it.. This does not hold true for me. I'd never used VC before joining my current company, and I love it -- iff the alternative is not meeting at all or text-only. As I pointed out above, it is crucial for team cohesion. The basic question is: why do you do it? what do you want to get out of it? If you just want to have a get-together, like going to the pub together for a few beers, all prep it needs is finding a time. And beer, maybe. If you want to have a distincly productive meeting, you need an agenda/goals and someone to _run_ the meeeting. But that is true of IRC meetings, too. About the only thing that IRC meetings are invariably better at, is logging. Note, however, that logging is no replacment for agendas or summarizing the outcome of the meeting. Regards, Tobias
